EVOLUTION: what about this

[StAnastasia]

When answering please ignore the intellectual bigots prowling every thread on faith and science ready to insult any who do align themselves with the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church and reject the theories and consensus shared even by agnostics and atheists.

Cassini, to encourage you, let me say that science works through the marketplace of ideas, the rough and tumble of rigorous discourse. If you sincerely believe your geocentric hypothesis has merit, please propose discussion of it to scientific conferences. If there is truth in it, God as architect of truth will protect you. It may take 400 years to convince the scientific establishment, but in view of eternity that is but an evening gone!

StAnastasia

 

[Dchsknight]

That really does not say the Earth is the center of the universe. when these people wrote bible all they saw was the sun rotating around them. we know now that is not how the universe works. they didn’t. When Joshua asked god to stop the sun. The earth stopped moving not the sun, because we know now the sun doesn’t move. with the other parts, the Earth went back words. The prophets asked God to do something, and he did it, that still does not say that the bible teaches Geocentricism. In all those wittings we know that God effected the Earth not the sun, because we know now that the sun is the center and the earth revolves around it and the sun does not move. so if Joshua asked god to stop the sun, God knew what Joshua needed and stopped the rotation of the earth so the sun was shining on Joshua and the moon on the other side. with the sun dial that means that Rotated the earth backwards so the sun dial would move back wards 10 lines. still does not say the earth was the center.

 

[mpartyka]

“And Ezachias had said to Isaias: What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me and that I shall go up to the temple of the Lord the third day? And Isais said to him…Wilt thou that the shadow go forward ten lines or that it go back so many degrees? And Ezechias said: It is an easy matter for the shadow to go forward ten lines, and I do not desire that this be done, but let it return back ten degrees. And Isaias the prophet called upon the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees backwards by the lines, by which it had already gone down in the dial of Achaz”. — (IV Kings 20:8-11).

“Behold I will bring again the shadow of the lines, by which it is now gone down in the sun dial of Achaz with the sun, ten lines backwards. And the sun returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down”. — (Isaias 38:8)

“Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still… Is it not written in the book of the just [now lost]? So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.” — (Josue 10:12-13).

Granted, Joshua and Isaiah both speak as if the sun and moon move while the earth remains stationary, but is it any wonder that they do considering the state of human knowledge at the time?

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again…Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” — (Ecclesiastes 1:4-7, 10).

I think I heard once that Ecclesiastes should be interpreted as a 2-part dialogue, with the first part being the part of the nonbeliever and the second part being the reply of the believer. Since part 1 – the nonbeliever’s part – is where we find the account of the Sun’s passage around the earth, should we really invest any faith in it, given it represents a nonbeliever’s point of view?

“The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands….He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.” —(Ps. 18:1, 6-7).

This is a Psalm. One would expect that a psalm might take liberty with reality to make a point, just like some songs do today.

–Mike

 

[Dchsknight]

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again…Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” — (Ecclesiastes 1:4-7, 10).

“The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands….
He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.” —(Ps. 18:1, 6-7).

These also really have nothign to do with Geocentricism

 

[cassini]

Granted, Joshua and Isaiah both speak as if the sun and moon move while the earth remains stationary, but is it any wonder that they do considering the state of human knowledge at the time?

I think I heard once that Ecclesiastes should be interpreted as a 2-part dialogue, with the first part being the part of the nonbeliever and the second part being the reply of the believer. Since part 1 – the nonbeliever’s part – is where we find the account of the Sun’s passage around the earth, should we really invest any faith in it, given it represents a nonbeliever’s point of view?

This is a Psalm. One would expect that a psalm might take liberty with reality to make a point, just like some songs do today.

–Mike

My mpartyka, I didn’t realise you were such an expert on the Scriptures. I better not mess with you.

 

[mpartyka]

I just want to see if Catholic creationists go that one step further than anti-evolutionism when it comes to the literal interpretation of Scripture regarding creation…

What I’d like to know is, how come you yourself don’t make the extra leap from geocentrist to flat-earther? Seems to me that the New Testament contains references that only make sense when viewed in a flat-earth context, such as Satan’s taking Jesus up to a high mountain and showing him all the kingdoms of the earth, or the sign of Jesus at his 2nd coming which will be visible all over the earth. Genesis 1 certainly evokes the idea of a flat earth when it speaks of a firmament separating the waters above (e.g., rain, snow, sleet, hail) from the waters below (e.g., oceans, lakes, rivers). What makes geocentrists right and flat-earthers wrong?

–Mike

 

[Dchsknight]

mike-

the whole water below and waters above, is referring to the waters above( The Sky) and the waters below (The actual Earth which had no land on it yet.) The firmament is space and the universe. In some translations of the bible God Called the Upper waters, A vault and then he called it Sky.

After he Made the “Water Below” or the actual blue ball called the earth he made land appear on it.

 

[StAnastasia]

What I’d like to know is, how come you yourself don’t make the extra leap from geocentrist to flat-earther? Seems to me that the New Testament contains references that only make sense when viewed in a flat-earth context, such as Satan’s taking Jesus up to a high mountain and showing him all the kingdoms of the earth, or the sign of Jesus at his 2nd coming which will be visible all over the earth. Genesis 1 certainly evokes the idea of a flat earth when it speaks of a firmament separating the waters above (e.g., rain, snow, sleet, hail) from the waters below (e.g., oceans, lakes, rivers). What makes geocentrists right and flat-earthers wrong?

–Mike

Isaiah 40:22: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle [not sphere] of the earth.”

 

[Dchsknight]

Isaiah 40:22: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle [not sphere] of the earth.”

You guys are being Ridicules…You guys cant use The book Isaiah to argue Geocentricism or Flat earth because the book is Prophesy. That means almsot everything in that book is symbolic and weird sounding. Like “we shall mount up on wings like eagles” that does not mean we will all grow wings and fly…

AND for the Record StAnastasia, you have taken that quote out of Context big Time. You cant just use that part and say “Oh that is flat earth” because if you read the chapters right before it and right after you would see that is not the case. right before is record of King Hezekiah and him being incredibly sick. Marduk-baladan son of Baladan sent People to give letters of encouragement and such…Marduk-Baladan(MB) lied though and convinced Hezekiah to show him everything in his palace, the People MB sent scouted out Isreal. Isaiah then told Hezekiah that you because of that your gonna lose everything to Babylon. and then the word of God came to Isaiah and then what follows is all the prophecy about Babylon and about how god is bring them back and about Jesus come and all the Prophecy from Daniel and Isaiah that Jesus must fulfill. God was showing the Israelites just how big he was and how small we are. So God used Terminology we would understand at that time. People back then did not know the earth was round and not flat. so God related to them in a way they would understand.

 

[grannymh]

.I was raised Baptist and by the grace and love of God and by him answering my prayers to show me the truth, I get to join the Catholic Church at easter vigil. MY Knowledge of the bible goes this far: I have read it, i believe every word of it and that it does not contradict it self and Science and History don’t contradict it either. I can not confidently say that the bible says the universe is Geocentric, because i don’t and have not studied and scrutinized the bible and history that much. I have to say i dont see where in the bible that it says it is Geocentric, If you can show me where it says or even implies it

On the Church teaching part… Does the Pope speak infallibly, yes, only on faith and morals. is this a Faith and Morals subject yes and No, yes on the fact that Evolution is a mockery of God and Believing in it insults our god,father,creator and mediator, no, in the matter that, believing in evolution is not what God is gonna ask us when we get to heaven.

So what do i say to the Church saying that the bible teaches Geocentricism: I think that is a stretch and i would have to be shown where and how those church fathers and people in power came up with that. Do i trust in God to correct me? Yes, i know he will because he brought Jesus in the Eucharist and i can not wait to take my first Communion.

I will forever battle and fight for God’s word and that Science does not know Jack compared to God. I am unafraid of the ridicule and the mockery. I know whom i belong to that is Christ Jesus my God,savior, king, Mediator, Best Friend, Brother and Creator. His Opinion of me matters most and i will not remain silent.

I think Science is beautiful and wonderful. I love the things that have been made because of science. Computers are crazy! i play in the Xbox 360 all the time and marvel at the science behind it. I work in 3D on maya, Photoshop, Illustrator and all that jazz and marvel at the tools that have been made to allow me to do my art work. I will not however stand for any science that Deny’s God, Jesus Christ, or the work of his Holy Church. Which Evolution does. Evolution Denies God and his Holy power, saying that God did not create the world and that by some and slow process we showed up on this PERFECTLY made life giving planet.

Because i am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is his holy book and church. And i will forever stand on the bible over science any day, because his bible just makes sense.

Dear Dchsknight,

How wonderful of you to join the Catholic Church. It is great that you will be able to receive Jesus Christ, truly present in Holy Communion. This is the foundation of Catholicism. Reading your post, I know that you are going to be a very good and faithful Catholic. May God continue to bless you.

This is what the Church teaches about creation. The Church Fathers were brilliant men who lived in the early centuries. They were known for their great wisdom regarding the Faith. In the year 325, the Church held the Nicene Council to formally define basic truths of Revelation. The Nicene Creed is the result. This Creed is prayed at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Sunday. It begins with the important truth about creation: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.”

You were correct when you wrote above “Does the Pope speak infallibly, yes, only on faith and morals.” In her wisdom, the Church does not apply infallibility to scientific matters. What the Catholic Church does is to use its resources such as talented individuals and university facilities to advance science’s development. The understanding is that when it comes to matters of scientific theory and scientific fact, members of the Church, including its Pope, are speaking as individuals and should be regarded individually. They are not speaking infallibility as a public official of the Church. However, their opinions have the right to be respected.

It is society’s use of scientific knowledge or how society applies scientific knowledge to daily living which can be examined from the Catholic moral perspective. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that all human life is worthy of profound respect.

You mentioned that some parts of the Church have been corrupt. You are right. It is understandable that some people would wonder how the Catholic Church can still be called holy considering its sinners. It will always be seen as holy because it witnesses with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, Whose Holy Presence continues within the Church. (Matthew 28: 16-20) Jesus Christ is constantly calling us to a holy life. Nonetheless, we are sinners. When we acknowledge our sins and follow the path of conversion, penance, and renewal, we are united with Jesus Christ in our imperfect holiness.

I also think science is beautiful and wonderful. When used properly, science is a gift of God. But all the current science and technology did not exist at the beginning of the world. The early people who wrote the different books of the bible praised God for His creation. This was the most important thing not the “how” everything worked. The early writers used beautiful descriptions to praise God. These were not necessarily precise scientific descriptions, though some were close. The teaching from these Scriptures was loud and clear – Almighty God is in charge. Almighty God is still in charge.

Blessings,
granny
Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth

 

[ricmat]

Edentulism is a function of age, diet, education and access to dental care.

“Function” in the context you use it directly above indicates causality. You said previously that you weren’t drawing a causal connection between education and edentulism. So which is it?

 

[StAnastasia]

You guys are being Ridicules…You guys cant use The book Isaiah to argue Geocentricism or Flat earth because the book is Prophesy. That means almsot everything in that book is symbolic and weird sounding. Like “we shall mount up on wings like eagles” that does not mean we will all grow wings and fly… .

Hmm, you said in post # 857:

“Picking and Choosing parts of the bible that fit with what YOU think is right, is to be Protestant. If you don’t believe what God said and believe that he made the world, universe, and everything in 7 days then your not catholic your protestant, because you do not believe in all of the bible…”

 

[StAnastasia]

“Function” in the context you use it directly above indicates causality. You said previously that you weren’t drawing a causal connection between education and edentulism. So which is it?

Edentulism has a complex etiology. You draw your own conclusions about why it is highest in states with a high incidence of Young Earth Creationism!

 

[ricmat]

To StAnastasia,
After hearing reports that the Wright Brothers had built a flying machine, Scientific American accussed them of lying. There is also the scientist who declared that heavier than air flight by some type of flying machine was impossible (hot air balloons not being part of his example).

Right on Ed!

It was Lord Kelvin, peer-reviewed, eminent, “outstanding in his field” scientist who declared that manned heavier than air flight was impossible. And the bicycle mechanics were correct.

The best part of the story (from my perspective as an engineer), is that it clearly shows the difference between “pure” science, and engineering science. Engineers make all sorts of “predictions” in the form of ideas which turn into concepts which turn into system level designs which eventually all turn into detailed designs. And something actually gets built. And it gets tested. And it works, or it doesn’t work. The “paper” theory is proven correct or incorrect.

The problem with evolution (like cosmology, archaeology, anthropology, etc.) is that all sorts of theories can be promulgated, but nobody ever “builds” anything to prove that it’s right or not (because they can’t). Nobody has ever made any dark matter, or black holes, or dark energy, or neutron stars. Or created a man from muck. Or even a man from a more primitive primate. They will swear up and down that “that’s what happened” but they can’t build a man. Because they can’t.

So from my perspective, perhaps monkey/ape/primate/whatever to man is what happened, but it remains mere speculation. Far short of proof, and far short of “show me.” It makes you wonder why the pure scientists are so arrogant and certain of truth. Engineers and applied scientists tend to be less so, since our stuff actually has to be built and work properly before we get paid.

 

[Dchsknight]

Hmm, you said in post # 857:

“Picking and Choosing parts of the bible that fit with what YOU think is right, is to be Protestant. If you don’t believe what God said and believe that he made the world, universe, and everything in 7 days then your not catholic your protestant, because you do not believe in all of the bible…”

StAnastasia… You just don’t get it. And your obviously some one who has never read or studied the bible in the least bit. All the parts of the bible are true, Fully and 100%. The problem with what your trying to fight about is Technicality. I believe the bible to 100% true. but you are taking a piece of prophecy that Isaiah is using to tell King Hezekiah, THAT BABYLON IS GONNA COME AND DESTROY ISREAL. he is not telling the king the earth is flat. He telling him Isreal is about to get rocked because your stupidity, about showing those people every single thing in the palace. He then continues to tell about the prophecy about Jesus and how God is gonna restore Isreal. See, because i have been protestant for the first 23 years of my Life i have not had the authority of the Catholic church(Which i am so excited to receive in easter) I have had to read the bible constantly, one of the things i have learned is that Catholics(Most of them, and i truly mean most of them not all) don’t know a lot of the bible and what it says because they don’t care or just plain don’t read because they have the clergy to tell them. Even though St.Paul said TEST EVERYTHING. They do not know what parts of the bible mean what. FOR instance as you have shown you don’t know that you not supposed to take prophecy and try to prove some scientific fact or something. Especially one that is proven like earth being round. We Kind of Figured that out when we landed on the moon. You can not take Psalms and use as literal because it is Poetry. King David Wrote most of it while on the run from King Saul. he wrote the other parts while he was king. He wrote them because when he was boy he was a Shepherd and watched over sheep ALL day. He was an accomplished song writer, singer and very good and playing the lute. He wrote those psalms to express his emotions and desires to God. THEY ARE NOT LITERAL( Example we are not Literally sheep Even though David calls us sheep) The bible is broken up into several parts ( if you did not already know this) and some of the parts are NOT LITERAL and you got use you head to see that. Yes you can not pick and choose what parts of the bible are true and aren’t, because that is Protestant, you also can not go into the bible like blind idiot and assume all of it is literal, that is stupidity, Another example, Jesus said he is the door does that mean jesus is a giant piece of wood with a door knob? NO he is the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but by him. and how do you get form one from to another A door. so Jesus is our door to Christ, doest mean he is a piece of wood.

You have got to stop twisting other peoples words it is wrong and inconsiderate. Just because your on another computer and we cant see you doesn’t mean you can say and do what ever you want and twist other peoples words to make you seem smarter and better then others. which is what your doing.

 

[ricmat]

Edentulism has a complex etiology. You draw your own conclusions about why it is highest in states with a high incidence of Young Earth Creationism!

I made no connection between YEC and edentulism. You did that yourself directly above. And to you too.

I said that it was related to old age. I’m glad that I got you to agree at least to that much.

 

[edwest2]

Right on Ed!

It was Lord Kelvin, peer-reviewed, eminent, “outstanding in his field” scientist who declared that manned heavier than air flight was impossible. And the bicycle mechanics were correct.

The best part of the story (from my perspective as an engineer), is that it clearly shows the difference between “pure” science, and engineering science. Engineers make all sorts of “predictions” in the form of ideas which turn into concepts which turn into system level designs which eventually all turn into detailed designs. And something actually gets built. And it gets tested. And it works, or it doesn’t work. The “paper” theory is proven correct or incorrect.

The problem with evolution (like cosmology, archaeology, anthropology, etc.) is that all sorts of theories can be promulgated, but nobody ever “builds” anything to prove that it’s right or not (because they can’t). Nobody has ever made any dark matter, or black holes, or dark energy, or neutron stars. Or created a man from muck. Or even a man from a more primitive primate. They will swear up and down that “that’s what happened” but they can’t build a man. Because they can’t.

So from my perspective, perhaps monkey/ape/primate/whatever to man is what happened, but it remains mere speculation. Far short of proof, and far short of “show me.” It makes you wonder why the pure scientists are so arrogant and certain of truth. Engineers and applied scientists tend to be less so, since our stuff actually has to be built and work properly before we get paid.

In the present, most science is geared toward application. It is only due to a division of labor that it’s difficult to be a Thomas Edison today. Gotta get product out the door.

The only thing that makes me wonder is the constant “just say yes to evolution” mantra around here. Most bright people I know just tell you what they’re working on and leave it at that. They don’t campaign to get you to accept or reject their findings.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

mike-

the whole water below and waters above, is referring to the waters above( The Sky) and the waters below (The actual Earth which had no land on it yet.) The firmament is space and the universe. In some translations of the bible God Called the Upper waters, A vault and then he called it Sky.

After he Made the “Water Below” or the actual blue ball called the earth he made land appear on it.

We are being pelted all the time by waters from above.

**Water in Space More Abundant than Expected **

 

[grannymh]

Dear Dchsknight,

I am so impressed with your knowledge of Sacred Scripture.

While you are writing, I am reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Part One: the Profession of Faith. There is a whole section on Sacred Scripture, paragraphs 101 - 141. A lot of what you are saying is there in black and white. Good going

Guess what? As if you didn’t already know. Nowhere is there anything that says: “If you don’t believe what God said and believe that He made the world, universe, and everything in 7 days then you’re not catholic…”

The Catechism does speak about the “literal” sense of Scripture, but this is not the only way God uses to teach us.

Paragraph 131: “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.”

Link to on-line Catechism is

www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth

 

[StAnastasia]

Nobody has ever made any dark matter, or black holes, or dark energy, or neutron stars. Or created a man from muck. Or even a man from a more primitive primate.

Have any scientists proposed creating these things?